In a majority decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court, and ruled that a Towson University football player should not be permitted to return to the football field, despite his recovery from a near-fatal injury and the fact that he was willing to pay the cost of monitoring his health on the football field to prevent relapse.
In spite of his claims that under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act he should be allowed to return, the appeals court found that the university’s requirement that a student athlete obtain clearance from the team physician before returning from injury was “an essential requirement for the student’s reinstatement to the football program after a heatstroke; the team physician reasonably determined that a proposed temperature monitoring accommodation would not sufficiently reduce the student’s risk of a future heatstroke; the proposed temperature monitoring and medical supervision would have fundamentally altered the nature of the football program, as it would have impinged on the professional medical discretion the team physician was retained to exercise.”
On August 12, 2013, plaintiff Gavin Class collapsed on the field while practicing as a member of the Towson football team. Class was rushed to the nearest hospital, where it was determined that he had suffered a heat stroke with liver failure and was facing a life-threatening situation. Ultimately, he was able to survive by receiving a liver transplant. After two years of intense medical and physical rehabilitation, his physicians, one an expert in liver transplants and the other in heat strokes, cleared him to resume his football career.
However, Towson’s team physician blocked the plaintiff’s return.
Class sued, alleging that Towson refused to clear him to play football in the upcoming season or to make any “reasonable accommodations” that would permit him to return to full participation. He further alleged that by refusing to make such accommodations, Towson is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12133 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
Class’ specific claims were:
The university has excluded him from fully participating in the football program solely because of his disability, thereby excluding him from participating in, denying him the benefits of, and otherwise discriminating against him in its facilities, services, programs or activities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Towson has failed to meet its obligations to provide him with equal opportunities as other students without disabilities by excluding him from the football team and denying him the benefits of, and otherwise discriminating against him in its facilities, services, programs and activities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12133
The university moved to dismiss.
In considering the arguments, the district court provided some background about the “severity of both his original illness and subsequent complications.
“Class’ rehabilitation was a long and arduous process. He was unable to stand on his own until several weeks into his hospital stay, and he was only able to remain on his feet for a matter of seconds. By the time he returned home (about six weeks after his initial hospitalization), Class was able to move around his house using a walker. He eventually transitioned to a cane, then to some unassisted walking. By December of 2013, he was able to perform some light jogging. He began other rehabilitation work, including light lifting and banded exercises, and in the spring of 2014, he began running and footwork drills with a personal strength coach. By October of 2014, he was lifting and running with the University’s strength coach. In short, this young man was making a remarkable recovery.”
The only condition placed on Class by his treating physician, if he returned to football, was that he wear protective padding to protect his abdominal wall.
Meanwhile, the Korey Stringer Institute determined “that Class had physically recovered from his heat stroke and that the accommodations and recommendations outlined in the report would insure that Class could cease activity before he reached a level where he was in danger of a reoccurrence of heat stroke or heat illness.”
District Court: Plaintiff’s ‘Proposed Accommodations Were Reasonable’
Following a one-day bench trial, the district court agreed with Class, concluding that Class’ proposed accommodations were reasonable and that Towson University had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The court entered judgment against Towson University, issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting it from violating those Acts.
On appeal, Towson University argued that the district court erred in concluding (1) that Class was disabled as the term is defined by the Acts and (2) that Class was ‘otherwise qualified’ for the football program with the accommodations he proposed.”
The appeals court agreed with Towson, vacating the injunction.
“While we recognize that the question of whether Class had a disability, as defined by the Acts, is a close one, we nonetheless conclude that Class was not ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate fully in Towson University’s football program because the University reasonably applied its Return-to-Play Policy. Giving deference to Towson University’s judgment, as we are required to do, we uphold its determination.”
The reliance on that Return-to-Play Policy was key. In a letter to Class’ attorney, Towson officials wrote:
“The University, with the advice of the MedStar medical professionals in its athletic department, has determined that while Mr. Class has made admirable strides in his recovery, he is unable to return to playing football safely and that no reasonable accommodation can be made to adequately protect him from potentially devastating health effects.
“The sports medicine professionals believe that the risk of serious injury or death as a result of another heat stroke is too great to clear Mr. Class to play. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Class’s prior heat stroke led to a cascade of devastating complications, including multi-organ failure, which resulted not only in the need for a liver transplant, but also in a very complicated hospital course, several additional surgeries due to wound infections, and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease that required chemotherapy.
“Most importantly, Mr. Class remains at risk for another heat stroke. His prior severe heat stroke is a significant risk factor for future heat illness. While some of his current transplant-related medical risks can be minimized with measures such as abdominal padding and medications, Mr. Class’s risk of heat stroke is not capable of adequate prevention with any reasonable restriction or accommodation. Routine temperature monitoring alone would not adequately provide for his safety, and the sports medicine professionals cannot fashion a reasonable or practical precaution that would adequately protect Mr. Class from another serious heat related illness. The individuals involved in this decision agree that it would be irresponsible to permit Mr. Class to be exposed to another potentially catastrophic event.”
Circuit Court: Towson University Acted Reasonably
In conclusion the majority wrote:
“Gavin Class is a courageous man of substantial character, which is much to be admired. He understandably has been seeking to validate his determination and perseverance to return to intercollegiate football and ‘to become the first person to come back from exertional heatstroke and a liver transplant to play football.’ While we hold that Towson University acted reasonably in response to the health risks posed by Class’ full participation in its football program, we nonetheless believe that Class has achieved a substantial victory with his accomplishments. He can be proud to tell his story.”
In a dissenting opinion, the circuit judge agreed with the majority that the district court applied the wrong standard in evaluating Towson’s decision. “The Team Physician’s medical determination that Class faced too great a risk of serious injury or death to fully participate in Towson’s football program was entitled to some deference.
“… But the majority opinion places too great an emphasis on Dr. Kindschi’s subjective intent, and not enough emphasis on the objective reasonableness of her medical opinion. And, the majority opinion makes its own factual findings instead of remanding to allow the district court to make factual findings under the correct standard in the first instance. For those reasons, I believe Gavin Class is entitled to more than being ‘proud to tell his story.’”
Gavin Class v. Towson University, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine et al; 4th Cir.; No. 15-1811, 806 F.3d 236; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19772; 11/13/15
Attorneys of record: (for appellant) Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Office of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. (for Appellee) Steven M. Klepper, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland.
